Tenancy Tribunal Dismisses Landlord's Cleaning and Minor Damage Claims
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled against the landlord's claims for cleaning and minor wall damage. The tenants were found not responsible for these issues as the landlord did not provide enough evidence to prove the claims.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not responsible for cleaning and minor damages if the landlord fails to prove the claims on the balance of probabilities.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, including keeping the rental property reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy and leaving it in a reasonably clean and tidy condition when moving out.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claims for cleaning and wall damage, finding the tenants were not responsible for these issues.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claims for cleaning and minor wall damage, finding the tenants were not responsible for these issues. The landlord failed to prove the claims on the balance of probabilities and did not provide sufficient evidence.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5155911 1
[2025] NZTT 5155911, 5155792
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] and [NAME] to pay [COMPANY] - As Agent For [NAME] $1,267.45 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,000.00 (6437835-008) immediately apportioned as follows:
[COMPANY] - As Agent For [NAME]: $1,267.45
[NAME] and [NAME]: $3,732.55
Description Landlord Tenant Rent arrears $1,135.71 Water rates $131.74 Total award $1,267.45 Bond $1,267.45 $3,732.55
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5155911 2
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
2. The tenants have applied for the return of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
3. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent and water arrears?
4. The tenancy ended on 18 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s evidence in support of these two claims I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for this debt. The tenants also confirmed during the hearing that they accept these claims.
5. The claim for rent and water arrears are proven.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
6. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
Cleaning claim:
7. The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
8. The landlord says that he took exit photographs on 13 December 2024, approximately 5 days prior to the end of the tenancy. The landlord further says that one of the tenants stated that they had already vacated on 13 December 2024. The landlord asked if he could do a final inspection on that date because he was going away. He stated that one of the tenants allowed him to do this.
9. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that no one from his office undertook a final inspection at the conclusion of the tenancy.
10. The tenants say that the landlord did not ask for permission to undertake an early exit inspection. The tenants also stated that they were not expecting the
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5155911 3
landlord to attend early. The tenants say they undertook further cleaning on 17 December 2024.
11. Notwithstanding the landlord’s explanation the tenants were legally responsible for the premises up to and including 18 December 2024. The onus was on the landlord to undertake a further and final exit inspection shortly thereafter. I would also expect the landlord to provide evidential photographs dated 19 December 2024 or shortly thereafter confirming the state of the premises. He has not done this.
12. The landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
13. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for cleaning must be dismissed.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
14. A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
15. Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
16. Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
17. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
18. Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
19. Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5155911 4
Wall damage:
20. The landlord also claims that there was damage to walls within the house. Photographs provided by the landlord show minor scratches and scuff marks. The landlord has not provided an expense claim in support of this. At the very least I would have expected a paid invoice or receipt in support of the amount claimed.
21. This claim is also dismissed. The landlord must show actual loss in respect of any claim and has not done so. I also find that the evidence provided shows nothing more than general fair, wear, and tear. The minor marks on the walls are consistent with a tenancy which began in December 2021.
22. The claim for compensation for damage to walls is also dismissed.
23. Because both parties have had a degree of success with their application I do not order reimbursement of the filing fees for each application.
[NAME]
26 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5155911 5
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5155911 6
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord proved the amount owed for rent and water rates with records and invoices.
- The tenants confirmed during the hearing that they accepted the claims for rent and water arrears.
- The landlord failed to conduct a final inspection at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord did not provide photographs dated shortly after the tenancy ended to show the state of the premises.
- The landlord did not provide an expense claim, paid invoice, or receipt to support the wall damage claim.
- The minor marks on the walls were considered normal wear and tear for a tenancy that began in December 2021.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean was not proven.
- The landlord's claim for compensation for damage to walls was dismissed because actual loss was not shown.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claims for cleaning and minor wall damage.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenants were responsible for cleaning the premises and minor damage to the walls.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenants were not responsible for cleaning and minor wall damage because the landlord failed to prove the claims on the balance of probabilities.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v), 40(1)(ca), and 49B were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claims for cleaning and minor wall damage.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord, who brought the claims.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have strong evidence to support their claims, otherwise they may face dismissal of their claims.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered, but it mentions that the landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence.